William Lane Craig

  • 78 Replies
  • 14127 Views
*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #60 on: December 21, 2010, 06:56:35 PM »
If it's so simple. Then you should have no problem answering my question.

You think about a gift as a gift because of greater brain activity in the inferior frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8896
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #61 on: December 21, 2010, 07:09:40 PM »
lol...so are you gonna answer my question?
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #62 on: December 21, 2010, 07:11:08 PM »
lol...so are you gonna answer my question?

You take an abstract thought that humans made and you want science to explain it. Science just explained your abstract thought.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #63 on: December 21, 2010, 08:31:32 PM »
If it's so simple. Then you should have no problem answering my question.

Oh, so you're asking if science can answer questions about labels we've imposed upon things. Perhaps science cannot answer this question, and many others, I didn't realize you meant everything-everything. I suppose that science cannot answer this question as well...

What flob of glange is most approiate in a superdoodle?

However, I do believe science could answer your questions when you don't decieve it with semantics.

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #64 on: December 22, 2010, 04:14:32 AM »
Science can't explain the abstruse ideas you make up in your head?  Interesting thought.  Do you find nothing wrong with the notion of classifying something as unexplainable then declaring checkmate when that something cannot be explained?

At best, and being generous, it's an interesting thought experiment -- can something be thought of which is unexplainable be explained?
Science deals with the objective, physical world... not the subjective, metaphysical world.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #65 on: December 22, 2010, 04:25:11 AM »
However, I do believe science could answer your questions when you don't decieve it with semantics.

I don't think anyone is claiming that science will NEVER explain everything. But right now science CANNOT explain everything. I could give you plenty of examples but I think you're smart enough to understand this without them.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #66 on: December 22, 2010, 06:46:58 AM »
Science can't explain the abstruse ideas you make up in your head?  Interesting thought.  Do you find nothing wrong with the notion of classifying something as unexplainable then declaring checkmate when that something cannot be explained?

At best, and being generous, it's an interesting thought experiment -- can something be thought of which is unexplainable be explained?
Science deals with the objective, physical world... not the subjective, metaphysical world.

metaphysical subjects are human constructs of the brain.  The physical study of which is neurology, or psychology, which could potentially explain why and how we come up with such ridiculous things.

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #67 on: December 22, 2010, 07:29:25 AM »
metaphysical subjects are human constructs of the brain.  The physical study of which is neurology, or psychology, which could potentially explain why and how we come up with such ridiculous things.
This argument is based on assumption. We do not know if metaphysical "subjects" are a construct of the human brain.
"None of you know what science is. That is why you argue over the net." ~ Truthseeker2

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #68 on: December 22, 2010, 10:14:58 AM »
However, I do believe science could answer your questions when you don't decieve it with semantics.

I don't think anyone is claiming that science will NEVER explain everything. But right now science CANNOT explain everything. I could give you plenty of examples but I think you're smart enough to understand this without them.

I claim that science will never explain everything
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #69 on: December 22, 2010, 01:47:10 PM »
I misread the intent of the questioner.  I assumed everything meant everything in the physical world, not literally every single question imaginable.  This tangent is my fault.

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #70 on: December 26, 2010, 09:44:31 AM »
Of course, even if we assume that Craig is correct in his argument (which he isn't), it still does nothing to prove that God is a Christian God.

And ichi, what makes you think that emirical data cannot be used to explain everything in the universe? What types of things are beyond empirical data, if any? What if we are simply not intelligent enough to put everything in scientific terms? But that doesn't mean it cannot be done.

metaphysical subjects are human constructs of the brain.  The physical study of which is neurology, or psychology, which could potentially explain why and how we come up with such ridiculous things.

Indeed. I've thought about this many times. Science can explain why people think of something as a "gift". Whether or not it is actually a gift is nonsensical because there is no universal basis for determining this. It's simply a thought held by humans.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2010, 09:49:14 AM by Keldarion Typrax »
The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken. -Samuel Johnson

*

Ichimaru Gin :]

  • Undefeated FEer
  • Planar Moderator
  • 8896
  • Semper vigilans
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #71 on: December 26, 2010, 11:30:31 AM »
Not everything is falsifiable and there are questions science simply cannot answer by itself.
I saw a slight haze in the hotel bathroom this morning after I took a shower, have I discovered a new planet?

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #72 on: December 26, 2010, 02:00:48 PM »
How do you know that?
The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken. -Samuel Johnson

?

fluffycornsnake

  • Official Member
  • 1307
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #73 on: December 28, 2010, 07:17:04 PM »
1. WLC unwittingly admits that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. This is important because creationists continue to claim that without an explanation for the origin of life evolution cannot be a valid scientific theory.

Why is this important? Isn't WLC an evolutionist?

You think about a gift as a gift because of greater brain activity in the inferior frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus.
Science just explained your abstract thought.

Pseudo-scientific babble != explanation.

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #74 on: December 28, 2010, 09:01:45 PM »
That isn't pseudo-science.
The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken. -Samuel Johnson

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #75 on: December 29, 2010, 01:57:37 AM »
How do you know that?

Because he understands philosophy, love, art, justice, Good/Bad (maybe), etc. None of those things are vulnerable to the scientific method. Sure, you can say that someday neuroscience will provide all the answers, but it's merely speculation and I highly doubt it. Not to mention, if you really consider the consequence that that future, it's not something to be desired.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2010, 05:23:17 AM »
How do you know that?

Because he understands philosophy, love, art, justice, Good/Bad (maybe), etc. None of those things are vulnerable to the scientific method. Sure, you can say that someday neuroscience will provide all the answers, but it's merely speculation and I highly doubt it. Not to mention, if you really consider the consequence that that future, it's not something to be desired.

What do you mean speculation? We already use neuroscience to analyze emotions.
The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken. -Samuel Johnson

*

Supertails

  • 4387
  • what do i put here
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #77 on: December 30, 2010, 03:57:59 PM »
Perhaps Dawkins is too thick to understand science can't explain everything.
You're talking about the guy that openly admits that science can't explain everything.  Like, literally, it was an entire premise in "The God Delusion".  It wasn't even a small admittance, he made a point to make sure the reader knew that scientists know that.
Recently listened to:


*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: William Lane Craig
« Reply #78 on: January 03, 2011, 12:37:21 PM »
1. WLC unwittingly admits that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. This is important because creationists continue to claim that without an explanation for the origin of life evolution cannot be a valid scientific theory.

Why is this important? Isn't WLC an evolutionist?

You think about a gift as a gift because of greater brain activity in the inferior frontal gyrus and middle temporal gyrus.
Science just explained your abstract thought.

Pseudo-scientific babble != explanation.

When did neurobiology become a pseudo-science?
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!